Karl Rove: The Final Campaign? genre: Polispeak & Six Degrees of Speculation
I've grown increasingly convinced that the current administration has one defining problem. They know how to run a campaign; not a country. Secondly, I have my suspicions as to why. The answer may be nothing more than two words...Karl Rove.
Let me try to explain. Upon George Bush's reelection, he wasted no time acknowledging that the win was crafted by Karl Rove, "the architect". Shortly thereafter, Rove was promoted to a Policy Advisor position. I contend that the timing of the Rove ascendancy to Policy Advisor matches the beginning of numerous Bush policy miscalculations. In my hypothesis, Bush was enamored with Rove's political genius, and his influence, already significant, was expanded even further.
In order to understand the dynamics, one must understand a little of the history behind George Bush and Karl Rove. The two met when Rove was twenty-two and Bush was twenty-seven. Karl Rove has been involved in the political career of George Bush since its inception.
From Newsweek (shortly after 2004 reelection):
In modern times there has never been anyone quite like Rove, possessing such a long working relationship with and influence over a president--a newly re-elected one who will wield an expanded majority in Congress. "I've been searching for a parallel figure," said Marshall Wittmann, a political strategist and writer. "The closest is Bobby Kennedy in his brother's administration.
Philosophically, Karl Rove has had a consistent political vision since the beginning. George Bush was long ago identified as the vehicle with which to transport that vision. The 2004 reelection gave Karl Rove the keys to that vehicle.
In fact, Rove's formulation is a new hybrid, willing to use big government in the service of markets and morality.
On domestic policy, Rove has a theme at the ready: "the ownership society" he says the president wants to build. It's a bland phrase, but the ideas behind it are hardly status quo. One is to consider abolishing the income-tax system, replacing "progressive" (meaning graduated) rates with a flat tax or even a national sales tax or value-added tax. Another is to re-channel massive flows of tax money from Social Security to private savings accounts and into expanded medical savings accounts. Yet another is a crusade Bush and Rove have been pursuing since Texas: a national cap on damage awards in lawsuits.
In all cases, Rove wants to force Democrats to defend taxes and lawyers. Trained in the ways of direct-mail targeting, he doesn't want to seduce the whole country, just an expanded version of what he's already got. He's aiming at fast-growing exurban areas, where small-business entrepreneurs--mostly Gen-Xers--tend to distrust the New Deal paradigm of government.
There is no doubt that George Bush has supported these objectives. In fact, one can easily find the evidence on Presidential stationary in a document called, "Fact Sheet: America's Ownership Society: Expanding Opportunities". Quoting from the document:
Life in America is changing dramatically, and President Bush believes that the Federal government should change too to help meet the challenges of our times. American families should have choices and access they need to affordable health care and homeownership; Americans should have the option of managing their own retirement; and small businesses, which employ over half of all workers, need lower taxes and less government mandates so they can grow.
In the planning for reelection, Rove's influence was evident. The Republican National Convention was designed to be the kick-off of the second term push for an "Ownership Society". Quoting from Business Week just prior to the convention:
In New York, the President will take the wraps off a second-term domestic agenda built around the idea of an "Ownership Society" in which Americans would be empowered to save and invest more, playing a larger role in managing their own health care and retirement finances. By promising to fight for private accounts in Social Security and a simpler and more investor-friendly tax code, Bush will return to the big reform themes that served him well in his 2000 campaign. Given his track record for bold and surprising strokes, he may also use his convention speech to hint at an even more ambitious second-term reform agenda that would tilt the tax balance further away from investment and toward consumption.
At the same time, although far in the background, there were skeptics who saw the inconsistencies in the plan. Among those who criticized the scheme was economist Bruce Bartlett, who said:
From Business Week:
The fancy labeling is "all retail politics, no vision," charges supply-side economist Bruce Bartlett, a flat-tax backer. They (Bush & company) said, 'Geez, we've got this hodgepodge of things, we've got to sell them.'"
Not everyone is convinced that Bush's paeans to property are an answer to future economic challenges. Liberals say that he envisions wrenching changes in the social compact. The thrust of his policies, foes assert, would be to place most of the tax burden on workers, not investors; to offload risk from corporations to individuals; and to undermine a social insurance system dating back to the New Deal. To critics, the Ownership Society is a reworked version of Newt Gingrich's 1994 manifesto -- the Conservative Opportunity Society on Botox.
The White House "has come up with a smart way to package principles that have rattled around the Right for generations," says Alan Brinkley, a Columbia University historian. But "millions of Americans can't afford to 'own' their retirement or health care, as Bush wants. They find the whole concept frightening."
Some right-wingers are also under whelmed by the ownership chat. They complain that Bush has shunned a flat tax, imposed steel quotas, pushed for a new Medicare drug entitlement, and deviated from the conservative script for the sake of political gain.
"Americans are optimistic and aspire to ownership," says Darrell West, a Brown University political scientist: "But pushing the Ownership Society is still risky, because it plays to future aspirations without addressing people's current economic problems."
If there is any doubt as to Rove's growing influence post reelection, one needs look no further than his own words. In June of 2005, Rove spoke at the New York Conservative Party. Not just a speech on policy issues, but a manifesto on the movement spanning the last forty years. Quoting from the Washington Post:
Think for a moment how much has been achieved by conservatives in the last 40 years. The conservative movement has gone from a small, principled opposition to a broad, inclusive movement that is self-assured, optimistic, forward-leaning, and dominant.
Four decades ago conservatism was relegated to the political wilderness - and today conservatism is the guiding philosophy in the White House, the Senate, the House, and in governorships and state legislatures throughout America.
bq. More importantly, we have seen the great rise of a great cause. Conservatives have achieved a tremendous amount in the past 2 ½ decades - but there is more, much more, that remains to be done. This afternoon I will devote my remarks to the President's victory in November; the ideas that will continue to work in our favor; and the state of contemporary liberalism.
Recall the President's remarks about his available political capital and the main stream media's repetitive statements about the President's mandate given his win with more than fifty percent of the vote. There can be no doubt where the President's thoughts originated and certainly there is no doubt that Rove was behind the media spin machine. Quoting further from Rove's speech:
The victory itself was significant. President Bush received more votes than any other candidate in American history. He's the first President since 1988 to win a majority of the popular vote. He increased his popular vote total by 11.6 million votes since 2000 - more than four-and-a-half times President Clinton's increase from 1992 to 1996. President Bush improved his percentage in all but three states. He improved his vote in 87 percent of all counties and carried more than 80 percent of the counties - and he won in 97 of the 100 fastest-growing counties and George W. Bush is also the first President since FDR to be re-elected while his party gained seats in the House and Senate - and the first Republican President since 1924 to get re-elected while re-electing Republican House and Senate majorities. And he won with a higher percentage than any Democratic Presidential candidate has received since 1964.
Next, regarding the administrations policy positions and the lofty goals of this "Ownership Society", we see clearly in Rove's remarks the degree to which his influence was guiding the President.
President Bush has pointed out that many of our most fundamental systems - the tax code, health coverage, pension plans, legal systems, public education, (and) worker training among them - were created for the world of yesterday, not tomorrow. He is committed to reforming great institutions to serve the needs of our time. As the President has said, to give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will bring the highest standards to our schools. We will build an ownership society by expanding the ownership of homes and businesses, retirement savings and health insurance, and preparing Americans for the challenges of life in a free society. We are putting government on the side of reform and progress, modernization and greater freedom, more personal choice and greater prosperity. The great goal of modern-day conservatism is to make our society more prosperous and more just.
The more I've read, the more I am convinced that Rove was awash in the spoils of victory such that he concluded the remaining task was simply unimpeded implementation. I think back to Richard Nixon, a man who saw his entire political career as a struggle against an opposing force. The psyche of Karl Rove has, in my opinion, some uncanny similarities. To understand the degree to which Rove envisioned "his" victory (not unlike Richard Nixon's eventual victory) as a vindication and the emergence of a new era and the beginning of GOP dominance, we look to his further remarks:
Let me now say a few words about the state of liberalism. Perhaps the place to begin is with this stinging indictment:
"Liberalism is at greater risk now than at any time in recent American history. The risk is of political marginality, even irrelevance.... [L]iberalism risks getting defined, as conservatism once was, entirely in negative terms."
These are not the words of William F. Buckley, Jr. or Sean Hannity; they are the words of Paul Starr, co-editor of The American Prospect, a leading liberal publication.
There is much merit in what Mr. Starr writes - though he and I fundamentally disagree as to why liberalism is edging toward irrelevance. I believe the reason can be seen when comparing conservatism with liberalism.
As with all dynasties, there are telling moments where the words of those in power, unbeknownst to the individual delivering the message, by comparison to those they have succeeded, predict the future mistakes that will spell their own demise. In identifying the wholesale errors of the vanquished opponent, they inoculate themselves with a righteous assuredness that is seemingly invincible...yet all too often blinded by the need for the type of power and authority that is seen to be virtually absolute. Near the end of Rove's remarks, he states the following:
These facts underscore how much progress has been made in four decades. It has been a remarkable rise. But it is also a cautionary tale of what happens to a dominant party - in this case, the Democrat Party -- when its thinking becomes ossified; when its energy begins to drain; when an entitlement mentality takes over; and when political power becomes an end in itself rather than a means to achieve the common good. We need to learn from our successes - and from the failures of the other side and ourselves. As the governing movement in America, conservatives cannot grow tired or timid. We have been given the opportunity to govern; now we have to show we deserve the trust of our fellow citizens.
Finally, to emphasize what I would explain in psychological terms as the "false consensus effect", I come back to the close of the Newsweek article shortly after the President's reelection.
Other forces are even harder to control. Reality may not match hopeful rhetoric in "elections" in places such as Ukraine, the Palestinian territories or Iraq. The falling dollar and soaring federal budget deficits may rob Bush of the chance to overhaul the tax code. Rove is hopeful about the 2006 midterms, but even FDR--the last president to win re-election and increase his congressional majority at the same time (in 1936)--saw his Democrats hammered in his second-term off-year election.
Other challenges are personal. Rove's vindictive temper pops out on occasion, as it did when he castigated editors of The New York Times on the campaign trail. "I still have a temper," he says, "for those who deserve it." He insists that the Bush team won't fall victim to hubris or insularity. "We're people who go at each other all the time, and hard. The president likes advisers who are comfortable enough in their own skin to do that. We do." True, but they've been breathing each other's political oxygen for a decade. Rove has built a national network of GOP allies. "He goes out of his way to be loyal to us, which is why we're loyal to him," said Tom Rath of New Hampshire. But neither Rove nor Bush has many Democratic friends, and in Washington, anyone who accumulates unelected power--especially someone with a reputation for using harsh tactics--is an inviting target. None of which seemed to bother him one bit. "You know what Harry Truman said: 'If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.' Well, I have two."
Recent activities by Rove and his political apparatus seem to indicate he sees his legal jeopardy in the Patrick Fitzgerald investigation as merely another political campaign. His removal from his position as Policy Advisor, while widely viewed as meaningless...myself included...may not be entirely accurate. Logically, it's a good move by the President in that it puts Rove where he is best suited...running campaigns.
At the same time, Karl Rove may not fully realize it yet, but his longstanding policy influence over George Bush may be waning. Granted, it may be a decision of necessity...but more importantly, it may be recognition by the instrument that the player has lost his magic touch. With regards to the Fitzgerald investigation, Karl Rove appears to be in full campaign mode and, at the same time, fully unaware that it may in fact be his last.
Daniel DiRito | May 1, 2006 | 11:14 AM
Comments
1 On May 1, 2006 at 1:37 PM, tctatc wrote —
I'll bet Bush wishes it was as simple as Karl Rove to solve the administration's problems. Karl is most likely a catalysts and not the active ingredient. The great presidents, Lincoln fot example did the right thing even though it was not politically correct. Rove may well have pushed image to the point it has neutralized any possible benefits of image, ability to get things done. It's most likely too late now for the administration to regain credibility. The average person now see's it as a pack of money grubbing liars that sacrifice the lives of our troops for their own selfish interests. It will take a lot of something to turn that around. Maybe if space aliens actually attacked.
Trackback Pings
© Copyright 2024
Post a comment